Should the Citizens Party support a National Popular Vote Plan?

Is it time to abolish the electoral college?

 

7 states have voted to enact the National Popular Vote Plan and it is making progress in other states. Should the Citizens Party support such a plan? Please discuss the pros and cons of switching to a system that would elect our President by popular vote.

 

National Popular Vote

Views: 2038

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for the information t f.   Are you involved with the National Popular Vote movement? We would like Tom Golisano or someone from the organization to come and speak to our members sometime. 

Yes. Abolish the "Electoral College". It is a tool to thwart the Will Of The People.

I completely support the abolition of the Electoral College and the support of a National Vote Plan as part of the Citizens Party Platform!!

All political offices and all appointments to bureau positions should be ratified by the "Popular Vote".

It is up to We The People, how "Good" a tool the Popular Vote will be. It is Our Responsibility as True American Citizens.

Do any other members have thoughts on the electoral college vs. National popular vote debate?

Maybe it is just me, but I have never understood the "need" for the Electoral College Institution. If a presidential election is for the "leader" of the whole nation, then the only thing that is important is for all good Citizens to vote and then for those votes to be honestly and accurately counted...completely from coast to coast.

One Individual Citizen, one vote. Why complicate matters with electoral colleges and gerrymandering and such?

There should be severe penalties for tampering with the vote.

Well. The "Electoral College" doesn't have to be a bad thing. We could rebuild it to be an Honored advisory body, that fulfills itself by making very astute recommendations as to candidate qualifications, experience and ideology. We can change its nature and retain the tradition of it and make it truly valuable to The American People?

Currently, it is best for our national economy to convince ambitious Americans to try to move to low-rent areas to improve living standards. This is greatly aided by the Electoral College as it encourages public-works funding for projects in rural areas like New Hampshire. 

This is interesting.

The "Electoral College" being involved in "ambitious Americans moving to "low rent areas"?

The "Electoral College encouraging public works funding"?

Keith Kevelson? Would you please elaborate further about this? I'm totally in the dark here. Links to explanatory web sites would be fine.

Essentially, if a small state can vote either way in an election, it is to candidates advantage to woo the small state with public works projects such as highways and faster commuter rails in an electoral college system. In a national popular vote system, it makes sense to virtually ignore small population centers and focus just on large states such as Texas and California, even though Texas is currently deep red and California is currently deep blue. This would discourage migration to underdeveloped areas of the country.  

The reason the public is ignoring this now is because so many rural, small states are deep red. Maine and Vermont are deep blue now too. However, Iowa and New Hampshire are cleaning up with the government encouraging companies like the Rockwell divisions and Brooks Automation to move there because victories in Iowa and New Hampshire are critical in a presidential election currently. This helps develop Iowa and New Hampshire immensely. It also encourages a silicon valley engineer who's struggling to cover his San Francisco studio rent to move to New Hampshire and work for a Massachusetts-based company because of improved commuter rails and highways.

Well. Most of Us not voting, would be a clear signal of Our displeasure in the way things are going.

I think the Democrat Party might react in different ways.

It might split on the Progressive / Conservative "line". The Progressives and some of the "Liberals" joining one, or more, of the Third Parties that presently exist...or starting a New Democrat Party (that would also be a "Third Party") The "Conservative" element of the Democrat Party, might join forces with the Republican/Tea Party, or build their own Third Party. What remained, if anything, of the old Democrat Party would become weaker than ever. (Reduced to Third Party status and strengths?)

The Republican/Tea Party would take the opportunity to further capitalist/corporate goals (new world order) and might even try to establish a One Party Governance System for Our Nation.

Then...either We would become "slaves" to the few wealth and power folks, or revolt. If there was a Revolution, it would be chaotic and weak in the sense of poor organization and fragmentation of various political/social elements. Probably end in anarchy and/or martial law.

Hard to say. This speculation is based on what I see. And what I don't see may cause big differences in the results coming from most of Us not voting.

well, that might show displeasure, but would it accomplish something substantive? maybe we should insist on "none of the above" to be listed on all ballots for all offices with the rule being if "none of the above" gets a majority, all existing candidates are then taken off the ballot for that office and a new slate would have to be proposed for a re-vote. I'm thinking a few "none of the above" wins would really get some attention of both the citizens and the political parties.

RSS

Citizens

 


© 2017   Created by Citizens Party   Powered by

Citizens Party Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

About your image
Join our CircleFollow Us On TwitterJoin our CircleVisit Us On FacebookFollow Us Youtube
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger... Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...